Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1993-04-06 Board of Cemetery Trustees MinutesTown of Reading Board of Cemetery Trustees Meeting Tuesday - April 6, 1993 Pursuant to a meeting legally posted, the meeting of April 6, 1993 convened at 7:30 P.M. in the Employee's Lounge, Town Hall Annex. Present: Joyce K. Miller, Chairman Daniel F. Driscoll, Secretary Carl H. Amon, Jr. Edward F. Fuller John Silvaggi Director Robert Keating of the Cemetery division was also present. 1. Secretary's Report Mr. Amon moved, Mr. Fuller seconded and it was unanimously voted to accept the Secretary's minutes of the March 9, 1993 Trustees Meeting. 2. Review - Budget Status Director Keating furnished copies of the revised budget which was approved by the Finance Committee and will be presented at the Town Meeting. 3. Review of Fees and Lot Prices On a motion by Mr. Amon, seconded by Mr. Silvaggi, it was unanimously voted to rescind the vote of the March 9, 1993 meeting on the fee revision and to raise the fees and price of graves and lots effective July 1, 1993. The new price structure is attached to this report. 4. Update Cemetery Siting Committee Chairman Miller and Mr. Fuller reported that the Cemetery Siting Committee is scheduled for one last meeting to finalize their report for the Town Meeting. The Committee have viewed all public and private lots. Bear Meadow and Batchelder Field appear to be the only available locations. Batchelder Field would be the logical choice in as much as Bear Meadow is Conservation Land, which would require Federal and State authorization for a transfer. Bear Meadow was purchased with 50% Federal funds, 25% State and 25% Town funds. Any transfer would require full reimbursement to the Federal and State governments plus a swap of equal acreage. 5. Equestrian Access to Recreation Area - Batchelder Field Motion by Mr. Amon, seconded by Mr. Fuller, it was unanimously voted to back the Conservation Administrator's proposal for an equestrian and pedestrian right of way from Pearl St. to the recreation area, and that an equestrian right of way not be allowed through the cemetery. 6. Batchelder Cemetery - Monument or Garden Type Motion by Mr. Amon seconded by Mr. Silvaggi, it was unanimously voted that this cemetery will be designated for mixed usage. Page Two. 7. Receipts Director Keating furnished the Trustees with copies of the receipts from the Sale of Lots and Miscellaneous charges for the last six months. 8. Town Meeting - April 12, 1993 In the absence of Chairman Miller, Mr. Silvaggi has agreed to make the present- ation to the Town Meeting for the Trustees concerning the need for an additional cemetery. 9. Next Meeting The next scheduled meeting will be May 4, 1993. Meeting adjourned at 8:45 P.M. espectfulllyy submitted, Dani~F. iD's ~_01~ Secretary To: Cemetery Site Selection Committee From: Dr. James Biller, Conservation Commission Chairman Date: April 4, 1993 Bare Meadow Conservation Upland Areas Possibility of Use for Cemetery Purposes The following points were discussed in a joint meeting between Don Nadeau, Reading Conservation Administrator, Jim Biller, Conservation Commission Chairman, and the Cemetery Site Selection Committee. The discussion centered around the possible use of upland portions of the Bare Meadow Conservation Area as a cemetery site. There are two types of upland areas in the Bare Meadow CA. The first is the large open meadow itself in the northwest sector. The second is a series of upland "islands" in wetland areas nearer to the Batchelder field parcels, but separated by wetlands. Any use of these lands for purposes other than as protected conservation lands is restricted by the Massachusetts Wetlands Protection Act and related laws and regulations. In addition, Reading has a local Wetlands Bylaw which is more restrictive in light of our local aquifer resources and the nature of the town. The following points were expressed as the "pro" side of the argument: 1) There is a theoretical possibility of a land swap for upland of equal value both monetarily and ecologically. Public money was used in the acquisition of the Bare Meadow Conservation Area and this complicates the possibility of a land swap, as well as malting it quite expensive. 2) Crossing the wetlands to the upland "islands", assuming the decision is made that they could be used, is again theoretically possible, but extremely difficult and expensive under current state and local laws and regulations because of the extent of the wetlands to be crossed and the need to replicate the area and function of these wetlands. 3) The Conservation Commission, Town Meeting, the state legislature, and various state and federal agencies would all have to approve such a swap. Although this would be extremely difficult, the mechanism for doing so is there with sufficient motivation and demonstrated need. The possibility of this use being approved might increase in the future if drastic changes in concerns and conditions were to occur. This could include positive changes such as the clear ability to protect all local aquifer areas so that adjacent upland areas were not quite so critical, or a serious worsening of other needs and priorities for the town or state such that wetlands laws and regulations were revised. 4) It can be argued that cemetery uses represent a gradual and limited "open space friendly" type of development (as opposed to commercial or residential development). The following points were expressed as the "con" side of the argument and represent the "real world" limits to such use: 1) It is obviously difficult to provide land of equal value both economically and from the perspective of the value of the land to the wetland system. This would include habitat, hydrologic, and other characteristics of the land. 2) Such transfer of use would challenge the credibility of the Conservation Commission since it would be at odds with the goal of long term protection of the land and resources. 3) The intent of the donors of such land was that it be protected as Conservation land. This would be difficult to overcome legally. In addition, such a change in use which would violate the wishes of land donors would create a situation which might discourage or eliminate future donations. Donors would not be able to count on their wishes being carried out. 4) Bare Meadow is in a relatively "pristine" state and a high priority for protection. It is a large, contiguous area with very significant wetlands resources which cannot be disregarded lightly. The integrity of the entire area would be threatened by the removal of the upland portions. The importance of the area is based on the wetlands and upland resources, the related habitat values, and the interdependent nature of the ecology. The importance of the area to local aquifer and water supply resources is significant. 5) The area is controlled not only by Reading, but by the Massachusetts Division of Conservation Resources and the National Park Service. The current climate for all appropriate agencies is to preserve and protect dwindling resources. 6) The sentiment of neighbors and the public at large is not conducive to use of Conservation lands for other purposes. The expectation of a significant segment of the Town of Reading opposing any such use is assured. 7) The current interest in and concern for open space and water supply protection appears to be ascendant. The chance that public opinion will change in the near future to allow such changes of use appears to be extremely slight. 8) Perhaps most importantly, the chance that the current Reading Conservation Commission, Town Meeting, state legislature, and responsible governmental agencies would all approve such use as required is essentially zero.